Double Dies?

[Scott99]

From what I've read, doubled dies being made is pretty self-explanatory. However, I'm having a difficult time understanding how one part of an image gets doubled and nothing else on that particular subject. For instance, the ear on the obverse, or the hand on the 2009 reverse and nothing else shows any doubling.

On that note, I was looking through the list of different 2009 DDR's and was wondering why a lot of them are DDR's, a lot look like what would be called die chips on any other coin since they don't retain any shape from the originating form.

Any information is appreciated!
Thanks

[coin-crazy]

With alot of the 2009 FY ddr, I look through them and felt the same way..

[jcuve]

First, the correct term is "doubled die" not double die. And to answer the rest: I believe you are questioning modern doubled dies (single squeeze). This type of hub doubling occurs in the beginning of the hubbing process when only part of the hub (which looks like a coin) and the die (which is conical shaped) are locked together. The pressure exerted forces the conical shaped die to create a reverse image of the hub. As the doubling occurs early on, and due to a brief tilted misalignment, only parts of the center area are doubled. The doubled areas are parts of the design which stick out into adjacent open areas of the design during the tilted misalignment - the doubling won't show elsewhere as it is A) too low in relief and B) obliterated during the remainder of the hubbing process as the raised design hub literally covers and eradicates what was accidentally doubled earlier. I have a few additional suspicions that I am writing about and not willing to to divulge at the moment.

Older doubled dies (like class I and IV) which sometimes show only part of the design are most likely due to one of the hubbings being lighter (or incomplete). Some suggest that is the earlier hubbing, but I feel it is unprovable as to which hubbing was first.

[Brad]

Read this thread too if Jason's post does not convice you:

http://www.lincolncentresource.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5070&highlight=conical

[Scott99]

I've just read that entire thread and all the links provided and it seems to answer most of the 2nd question... Though not really as to why some are not considered die chips.

However the doubled ear on the 1984(most popular i'd imagine) was part of the main question... or how it happens without affecting the rest of Lincolns image. Which by reading all that seems was before the single-squeeze.

"According to the 1986 Report of the Director of the Mint, the Mint was in the process of developing single-squeeze hubbing presses for the production of working hubs and working dies. According to that document, “During FY86 (Fiscal Year 1986 which actually began in 1985), the Mint further developed a new process for a key aspect of die manufacturing, the hubbing of dies in a single squeeze."

[jcuve]

The call as to whether it is a die chip or hub doubling is made by an attributer who has experience observing both phenomena. The more coins which are found of a doubled die, the more die states (or stages) would validate most questionable doubled dies.

The 1984 was the result of a partial hubbing. I would suspect, but can not prove, the off-set misalignment was spotted during the hubbing and stopped. As to why it was not spotted before production to have a doubled ear and used for a while would also deepen the mystery. There are other nice partial hubbings such as 1939 DDO-001, which may also have had a partially tilted hubbing as well.

[Scott99]

The call as to whether it is a die chip or hub doubling is made by an attributer who has experience observing both phenomena. The more coins which are found of a doubled die, the more die states (or stages) would validate most questionable doubled dies.

The 1984 was the result of a partial hubbing. I would suspect, but can not prove, the off-set misalignment was spotted during the hubbing and stopped. As to why it was not spotted before production to have a doubled ear and used for a while would also deepen the mystery. There are other nice partial hubbings such as 1939 DDO-001, which may also have had a partially tilted hubbing as well.

I see. So the doubled eyelids would be done in the same way? It is nice to know with the information you guys are providing here and in that other thread.

What I understand according to your post is that the new doubled die listings are based on the opinions of professionals that are experienced in detecting doubled dies, die chips, and other anomalies on the end-result product. What happens to the dies at the mint when they've been used enough, and would there be a way for someone to study them(since it is the origination of the anomaly)?

[jcuve]

I do not believe there is any way the Mint would allow someone to inspect a die that was thought to be doubled - they may do it, but not someone from the outside. Attributers often use overlays to help explain their hypothesis with a specific doubled die. You can find examples from Billy Crawford doing just that with several '09 DDRs.

And yes, the class IV doubled eyelids appear to be very brief hubbings - as to why I have no idea as there are so many and the spread is often all that great so I am not sure why it was stopped.

[mustbebob]

As an attributer, I certainly understand your questions Scott. First off, an attributer should know all of the known die classes pretty well before he'she attributes other people's coins. Knowing how each class affects the die is crucial. For instance, the 1984 doubled ear was the result of a class 4 (offset hub doubling). If you read the explanation of the classes of doubling, you can see how the actions at the mint could produce these anomalies.
I noticed you underlined 'opinions' in one of your posts. I guess you can call it an opinion, but anyone can give an opinion. I, as an attributer, am giving you an assessment of your coin based on my knowledge of the minting process and the systems in place at the time your coin was made. Over the years of looking at coins (in my case, probably many hundreds of thousands of them), people can learn to discern the difference between hub doubling or a die chips. I can pretty well guarantee that none of the published doubled dies are die chips. Can I make a mistake? Absolutely! I have done so in the past. A part of being an attributer is to also pass on knowledge. Some day, I am hoping that some of the folks here might become attributer's. It's just like specializing in anything else. You must study...study...and study some more. The 'learn by doing' saying applies here. I have to be comfortable enough in my assessments to be willing to tell someone the good news, as well as the bad. I love this hobby, and that is the reason why I do what I do. I hope everyone here has answered your questions Scott. Thanks for bringing them up.

[Scott99]

As an attributer, I certainly understand your questions Scott. First off, an attributer should know all of the known die classes pretty well before he'she attributes other people's coins. Knowing how each class affects the die is crucial. For instance, the 1984 doubled ear was the result of a class 4 (offset hub doubling). If you read the explanation of the classes of doubling, you can see how the actions at the mint could produce these anomalies.
I noticed you underlined 'opinions' in one of your posts. I guess you can call it an opinion, but anyone can give an opinion. I, as an attributer, am giving you an assessment of your coin based on my knowledge of the minting process and the systems in place at the time your coin was made. Over the years of looking at coins (in my case, probably many hundreds of thousands of them), people can learn to discern the difference between hub doubling or a die chips. I can pretty well guarantee that none of the published doubled dies are die chips. Can I make a mistake? Absolutely! I have done so in the past. A part of being an attributer is to also pass on knowledge. Some day, I am hoping that some of the folks here might become attributer's. It's just like specializing in anything else. You must study...study...and study some more. The 'learn by doing' saying applies here. I have to be comfortable enough in my assessments to be willing to tell someone the good news, as well as the bad. I love this hobby, and that is the reason why I do what I do. I hope everyone here has answered your questions Scott. Thanks for bringing them up.

Thanks Bob, I appreciate you not taking offense to my comment about opinions as it was directed towards those that do attribute coins. I also appreciate everyone's knowledge they share with me about coins. I personally do not want the responsibility that is required with attributing coins, but I think the knowledge it takes to be an attributer would make spotting an authentic anomaly that much easier. I really like to know as much as I can about anything I do.

It really makes me glad this is the first and only forum I go to for pennies. A lot of helpful information from realistic collectors/searchers and not the "hopefuls" with their heads in the clouds that overlook the obvious. (referencing the post about the 2010 Doubled Die that was smashed with another coin instead of actually being a doubled die.)

Again, thanks for all the information everyone shared on this particular topic, makes it easier to understand what I am looking at on the digital microscope.